Talk:World War III/archive
Enterprise ruined it by showing us 22nd century NYC, now the whole idea of a nuclear war seems ridiculous, as it would obviously be the first thing to be wiped off the map, the only alternative would be a 1 way nuclear conflict, ie the use of nuclear weapons by only the United States, maybe those wonderful "bunker busters" that we're planning on using in Iran, either that or NYC somehow cedes the union before WWIII, removing it from a list of possible nuclear targets, I wouldn't mind, I mean w/o NYC the rest of the country would just be farm land anyway.. ..suffice to say, 4 and half years ago the idea of all out nuclear war suddenly became plausable again, go figure--172.156.9.20 00:58, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) :...what? When did we see New York City (of the 22nd century) on Enterprise??? The only thing was saw was NY in 1944, in an alternate history. This sounds like just a political view put on a trek page again. - AJHalliwell 02:34, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::first or second season cliffhanger, archer's aparpment, prior to taking command of enterprise, Daniels keeps him about a year in the past for safe keeping, hardly alternate--172.142.73.74 04:22, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) :::Hm, was that New York? Even if it was, I sapose they could have rebuilt it. Look at the San Francisco bridge, it was destroyed in "The Changing Face of Evil", so was starfleet command, and within a yaer it was back up. I'm sure with a century, they could have gone from dust to buildings again. Image:San Francisco attacked2.jpg - AJHalliwell 04:36, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) : I think the apartment being in New York is just speculation. It seems to be just a generic apartment that could be anywhere. If someone saw the Empire State Building or Statue of Liberty from the windows or something, then I must've missed it. Although New York does exist in the 22nd century. Major Hayes mentioned it. And Archer said he was born in New York (so it must exist in 2112, after WW3), but he also said he spent much of his adult life in San Francisco. One of the major American cities that hasn't been mentioned as existing after WW3 is Los Angeles, although that may be the result of the Hermosa Earthquake and not the war. ::Just some historical precedent(from what I can remember from 10th grade Canadian History) - there are towns in France that were completely destoryed in World War I, built exactly to specs after the war, destroyed again in the next war, and rebuilt again - yet since they followed the same designs, if you look at photo's you can barely see the difference. Jaz talk | novels 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Perhaps New York simply had a missle defense system? I would think if you were going to save any city in America, it would be New York, so it seems like there would be a great effort to protect it. Also, we don't know how radiation cleanup will be handled in the future. It could very well be that New York bounced back from the war very quickly (I would expect no less from New York). Keras 01:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC) other I think it should be noted that in Space Seed Spock says that the Eugenics War was World War III. Just click on the link to the episode, because I've included the quote. TOS never establishes a 21st century WWIII TNG also never particularly said WWIII was in the 21st Century. The first time it is brought up as a 21st century event, is Star Trek: First Contact. I defy anyone to find a line that out side of First Contact, (Only TOS orTNG) that proves a 21st century WWIII. A line that is more solid then mine. :Spock said "of your last so-called world wars", implying that this era knew several more then one single war. Ottens 11:13, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST) Your idea would require him to say "Your so called World War III" He was calling all 3 World Wars So called. You are really stretching. TOSrules :it's pointless to talk away this inconsistency, since the makers of star trek admitted the flaw. they said back in the 1960s they wanted a third world war, the eugenics war, taking place in the future, which meant 1992 back then. since tng however, this future became the past and nothing like the eugenics war really happened, so they replaced it again to keep it in the future, the 2050s. eventually, it's kinda strange for a sci-fi franchise to state that the third world war/eugenics war took place in 1992. "star trek:first contact", "ds9: dr bashir, i presume" and "ent:hatchery" are all episodes which support the third WW/the eugenics war taking place sometimes in the 2050s. that's the same thing as with the ridges on a klingon's forehead. back then there wasn't enough money and make-up technique, but later both were available, so the producers took advantage of it. star trek has to move on and adapt. --BlueMars 15:08, Aug 24, 2004 (CEST) :It was wrong to move up the date just because the event never occurred. I've always felt Star Trek events do not have to occur because it takes place in another Dimension. A friend had pointed out to me that AG must have been invented in the 1990's because Khans ships had it. If you think about it even the dead people probe had it in the TNG Episode "The Neutral Zone" TOSrules 01:30, 24 Aug 2004 (PST) ::Am I the only one who doesn't know what "AG" is? Ottens 23:11, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST) :::AG = Artificial Gravity I think McCoy referred to an event called "Bread and Circuses" in which 37 million people were killed. Wasn't this supposed to be AFTER the Eugenic Wars? There was also Colenel Green in TOS. -2 of 4 :Actually it was Spock. He started listing off how many people died in Each world war, "37 Million in your Third". But he never gave any information as when when WWIII occurred. Coronal Green was said to have waged a Genocidal War in the Early 21st century, but it was never called WWIII. -- TOSrules 16:18, 24 Aug 2004 (PST) It was established in Demons (ENT) that the conflict was, indeed, World War III. What does this mean? That the episode revealed the Eugenics Wars to be World War III? I don't remember any such reference being given in "Demons", and it's unlikely that it would have been. Suggest clarifying or removal. --Shran 09:02, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC) Woah- Demons never said the Eugenics Wars and WWIII were the same thing!? Demons didn't make *any* references to the EW, and they said that "after WWIII, the nations of the world came to San Fransisco" blah blah blah. And Colonel Green served after/during the WWIII. Removing it. - AJHalliwell 02:34, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) *You're all forgetting that they could partially overlap. The Eugenics Wars could be a series of conflicts over a long period of time that peaked in the Third World War, so that the Third World War would be the Eugenics Wars but the Eugenics Wars would not necessarily be the Third World War. Or any other odd variation of this kind of nomenclature. Jaf 02:43, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf There is no way the New York was destroyed then rebuilt in a 100 year time frame. If New York was destroyed by nukes then radiation fallout in that area would probably prohibit any rebuilding at least for several generations. If I were in charge of production, I would have written NYC off as a casualty of WWIII. I suppose they don't want to offend NYers. BTW the placement of mention of Colonel Green as part of the Eugenics wars seems incorrect. I thought he was a player in the mid-21st Century WWIII. dsmith 08:26, 15 Feb 2006 (UTC) *I can't speak for NYC; it seems that there isn't enough information to form a valid conclusion. For Col. Green being right after the Eugenics Wars, please see the discussion below under Non-Canon in Article for the source material regarding his timeframe. Aholland 20:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :*It might interest you, though, that a historical archive graphic (essentially a chronology) seen in ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" states that WWIII began in 2026 and that Colonel Phillip Green was a part of that war. The war itself was desrcibed in Star Trek: First Contact to have ended around 2053, which means Green's activities could have taken place between 2026 and 2049 and still be placed in the early 21st century, as is stated in "The Savage Curtain". Unfortunately, because the historical archive contains some minor mistakes and because it was not legible on the screen, it's apparently going to be discounted, which is a pity considering the effort it took to get it. --From Andoria with Love 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC) People now live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I have no problem with people living in formally nuked cities in the US a few centuries later. IIRC, the only US cities we've seen post-21st century are San Francisco and New Orleans, and they could either have been 1) not targeted (although unlikely for San Fran as it's an important naval base), 2) protected by a missile defence system, 3) rebuilt, or 4) some combination of the above. I am confused where the article states that WWIII was ended with a cease-fire wehn world leaders met in San Francisco. My guess is this comes from ENT:Demons, but as far as I can tell there is nothing stating that the great conflict mentioned was WWIII - in fact my interpretation is it was a reference to the formation of the UN after WWII, the charter for which was signed in San Francisco. Colonel Green Picture I can barely make out the small face on the viewscreen which was obviously intentionally made obscure to only highlight actor Phillip Pine's facial features and not Steven Rankin. I suggest we replace the picture with the original series photograph of Green which is a vividly detailed close-up. Any objections? I can't be the only one who would prefer this. - AC84 11:37, 30 Dec 2005 (PST) Non-Canon in Article? I don't know where it is stated in Trek that "for several decades, tensions had been rising between the major powers of the West (North America and Europe) and the Eastern Coalition (Middle and Far East)." The "Eastern Coalition" was mentioned in Star Trek: First Contact, but who made up the Coalition was not specified. And I don't recall the "West" being described as being North America and Europe in Star Trek. The supposition might be on target, but I believe it to be mere supposition. I suggest the article be revised to remove the affiliations after someone confirms whether I'm right. Aholland 04:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC) :I was wondering about that too. I can't seem to remember anything. It may be one of those things that have slipped into false canon (like Spock being the only Vulcan in Starfleet, ect) in which case it should be removed. Jaz 04:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC) ::I've done some recent updates around WWIII, so I'll take a crack at revising this one to get it straight. Aholland 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC) :::Just wanted to say, you did a very good job with the article, but: there is still some speculation present. At the moment, the article states there were two conflicts that were stated to be World War III. However, while the World War III of the mid-21st century was specifically stated to be World War III, the Eugenic Wars were only statedo as being within the era of Earth's third World War; it was never definitively or specific stated to be the actual World War. Knowhatimean? --From Andoria with Love 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC) :::Also, statements like "the first conflict to be called World War III" -- basically anything saying there were two conflicts called WWIII -- are told in the wrong perspective, as it is only background info/speculation. Also, where did it say Colonel Green was an actual part of the Eugenics Wars? --From Andoria with Love 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC) ::::Thanks! In response to your comments: ::::*In "Space Seed" the lines are: Spock - "The mid-1990s was the era of your last so-called world war." Kirk - "The Eugenics Wars." Kirk was responding to Spock and it seems unlikely that he was doing anything other than giving an alternate name to what Spock claimed was the "last so-called world war" In "Bread and Circuses" Spock gives death counts for each of WWI, WWII, and WWIII: Spock - "They do seem to have escaped the carnage of your first three world wars, Doctor." McCoy - "They have slavery, gladiatorial games, despotism . . . ." Spock - "Situations quite familiar to the six million who died in your first world war, the 11 million who died in your second, the 37 million who died in your third. Shall I go on?" So if the Eugenics war was the "last" world war then it had to be WWIII or higher. Higher numbers don't fit anything, so it seemed the only conclusion to reconcile the two statements. ::::*I think that in actuality there *are* two conflicts discussed in the series. In TOS it was clearly a 1990s war. In TNG it was clearly a mid 21st Century war. Spock would never have pegged it to just the 1990s if the conflict extended into the middle of the 2000s (I think, anyway). And clearly there is conflict ongoing in or near 2063. So if there are two conflicts, each of which is called WWIII, it seems logical - to borrow a phrase - to say that one was called that first. ::::*Colonel Green was firmly placed in time by "The Savage Curtain": "Colonel Green led a genocidal war early in the 21st century on Earth." Early 2000s is too early for the mid-century conflict. It is almost too late for the Eugenics Wars. But . . . if his genocide took place AFTER the Eugenics Wars were over - a timing supported by "Demons" - then his timeframe falls neatly into place and makes him right after the Eugenics Wars. Plus he had on a similar red costume to Khan's in "The Savage Curtain", which helps place him as a contemporary to Khan. Or at least gives him similar sartorial taste. :) Aholland 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC) :::Very well argued. So well, in fact, I can't think of a rebuttal, lol! Makes sense to me. Good job. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Conjecture This article still has a bit of conjecture in it, in that it assumes the war was, actually, two wars. We already have Eugenics Wars, and we don't need two articles with the same information. Since the Eugenics Wars was only referred to as being within the era of WWIII, a simple note saying the Eugenics Wars were somehow associated with World War III and a link to the conflict is all we need. We can let the reader make up his/her own mind how it all relates. --From Andoria with Love 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC) *By the way, according to production art from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" (ENT), World War III actually began in 2026 and was based on the issue of genetic manipulation and enhancement. And, according to both suggested canon policies, this is considered canon information (although it should be noted it comes from production art). Anyway, the fact that the war was being fought for the reasons stated suggests that the Eugenics Wars was a conflict which resulted in the war, and thus is considered a part of the era of the Third World War by the 23rd century. This last part, of course, is speculation, but it does make sense. --From Andoria with Love 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC) ::Let's review the bidding as to dates: ::*Saying that the Eugenics War was took place in the "era" of WWIII in the article with a link is fine by me, which is what I understand from the above. That supports the "long war" theory, since the mid-1990s is pegged directly for conflict, as is about 2053 for an end to WWIII. ::*Including the date of 2026 as a start for WWIII directly conflicts with Spock's scripted dialogue, however, and should be avoided unless the "renamed war" approach is kept (see below). Without assuming a renaming, both cannot be true as stated as 30 years between one event and another is not the same historical era (at least when talking about fast moving eras like the 20th Century). That would be like saying "The invasion of Poland by Germany 1939 was in the same era as the first moon landing in 1969"; it is absurd on its face. ::*There are only two ways to reconcile the events: (1) either the conflicts were each called WWIII during different times (matching virtually all valid resources and with historical precedent) or (2) WWIII is viewed as a conflict beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing through the mid-21st century. ::*I've recently realized that the production art actually supports the "renamed war" theory, as 2268 (when the Defiant was thrown back) could have been the point at which historians renamed things. It is after Spock's 2267 statement, and matches things nicely. (Of course, unless it switched back again it does make Col. Green a very youthful looking man in the Paxton video, but that is not a direct conflict, just good genes.) ::*So . . . either it is one long war, and the production art becomes a footnoted error like Bennett's statement ("you correct the Admiral" - "No, YOU correct the Admiral"), or there was a redsignation of the wars' names in 2268 and the Enterprise production art, Spock's statement, death tolls, Green's participation, First Contact, and the other valid WWIII resources fall into place nicely. That is why I continue to support the "renamed war" theory as the only one that matches virtually all the data elements. Aholland 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Rewrite A few thoughts on the redraft: *All in all, well done. I know it is a draft, so you might want to work a little on flow from one topic to the next - not to add facts but to smooth out the transitions from a writing style point of view. *Instead of Era of the War, why not simply say "The Eugenics Wars", or "The Beginnings of the War"? *In Era of the War, rather than the Eugenics Wars being the "catalyst" for WWIII, why not stick more to the dialogue and say it was part of the "era" of the last world war, in the text rather than the header. You might also consider borrowing from the production art and saying that the issues of human genome manipulation in the Eugenics Wars extended into further conflict during the next half-century. Or something like that. And I believe that the "era" of drugged soldiers was from the mid-21st century instead; you just need to move it. From TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint"'s script: The "Q" visitor moves a hand again to create THE SAME SOUNDS and the SAME BLINDING FLASH, producing the same human image but this time unshaven and with an UGLYAUTOMATION LOOK AND IN THE UNIFORM OF A MILITARY OFFICER FROM THE MID 21st CENTURY WARS. *In Green's War, I'm not sure where you are getting the "invariably causes" from. I know where the rest comes from. I wouldn't create a new article for "despotic", by the way; I think that it is understood as a word without having to define it for Trek purposes. But why call it "Green's War"? Is that based on dialogue (don't have DVDs with me)? If not, consider "Colonel Green", or "Eco-Terrorism and Genocide", or just "The War Continues" (following up on the "Beginnings" if used). Also, rather than "preemptively battled his enemies", consider relying more on the dialogue from "The Savage Curtain" and say he was "notorious in at least the 23rd Century for striking at his enemies in the midst of negotiating with them." *In "The Cease Fire", I would avoid mentioning "The xenophobic movement"; it is a tangent to WWIII. Well done, though! Aholland 02:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC) New Issues Tim Thomason did a rather nice rewrite of the article that dealt with the issues discussed on this page above. He did so using valid resources, actual dialogue, and avoided both conclusions explicitly contradicted in the episodes and excessive theorizing. All in all, a very good article that just needed a little smoothing and a few corrections (discussed above). In the course of one day it has changed in ways that haven't really improved it. We now have dates identified that conflict with spoken dialogue - without explanation or notation of the conflict. We have words used in scripts (e.g., "drugs") replaced with words not used in scripts (e.g., "narcotics") - for no apparent reason. We still have issues I pointed out above which have not been addressed (e.g., an unattribed line back that Green "invariably caused" the loss of 37 million lives - wherein the invariablity is drawn from nothing at all). There are new issues (e.g., radioactive isotopes are in the atmosphere today, it is simply the issue of how much). I will go in and attempt to correct these to more closely follow Tim's example of saying what we know using the actual text from valid resources as much as possible, while addressing issues identified above. It may not be today, though. Aholland 16:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :It seems to have improved regarding the "style" (list vs. prose), while the content stayed the same? Of course, if there are still issues with it, old or new, those need to be addressed. Some of them are corrected as we speak. I don't think that a one-word-change ("drugs" vs. "narcotics") is one of them, though. Both seem to be equally valid, don't you think? -- Cid Highwind 10:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC) ::Those two words are often used interchangeably, but by definition, narcotics are a specific class of drugs, and I don't think we can say exactly which kinds of drugs were used. --Aurelius Kirk 10:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC) ::: But unlike "drugs", especially how they are defined here, the intent of the "drugs", as they were used in "Encounter at Farpoint" fits the description of a narcotic. Now I'm sure we all own dictionaries, so I suggest first we look up the meaning of a narcotic, and then we might notice that it was quite clear that Q's reaction to his "hit" was that of a drug "with potent analgesic effects associated with significant alteration of mood and behavior, and with the potential for dependence and tolerance following repeated administration." Why else would the "out of order" Army soldier be taking a "hit" of anything other than a narcotic right before he was executed? To kill the pain, man. Even a line cut from another narcotic-related episode had one of the main characters say: "As in the 21st century, when Earth governments used narcotics to control the military." -- confirms my interpretation of type of "drugs" being used in E@F. Additionally, in "Symbiosis," Yar gave quite a speech about "drugs," but they were clearly in reference to drugs that are defined as narcotics. Either way, as you say AureliusKirk, the terms can be and were used in that episode interchangably, but for clarity and the sake of this website we need to differeniate the two. Whether or not Aholland sees this as an "issue" is his opinion (not an issue), I however, do not think that it is right that he feels the need to enforce his opinion on everyone else by changing words, and potentially creating an edit war, because he does not agree or see the intent behind their use here without splitting hairs. --Alan del Beccio 19:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Not to split hairs :) , but many drugs - known and unknown - could be useful to control people without them having to be narcotic in nature. Remember that Q spoke of "control", not "easing of pain". Certain drugs that treat depression alter the mood of people without being an opiate analgesic (made from opium, which is what a narcotic drug is); it is not beyond the realm of possibility that outgrowths of that line - or other lines -of drugs can result in making someone susceptible to suggestions or orders. My point is simply that the episode says "drugs" without saying more. And that neither should we. Aholland 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC) :I, too, think that moving back and forth between "drugs" and "narcotics" is "splitting hairs". The dictionary I just used to look up both even uses them interchangeably, and doesn't specify one as "an opiate analgesic" and nothing else. Given the fact that a page for narcotics was already created and that, yes, Q behaved as if he just used narcotics, I don't really see the problem with it. There are some other issues with the latest edit, though, which I'm trying to address later. -- Cid Highwind 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC) The definition in Memory Alpha itself specifies that all narcotics are "opiods" (which is a typo for "opioid"). Most medical professionals prefer the term opioid over "narcotics" for any natural or synthetic substance that behaves pharmacologically like morphine, the primary constituent of natural opium. That's fine, except that it is a leap to say that the referenced drug *has* to be like morphine. If the article on narcotics is redefined to be something like "A natural or synthetic addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and/or behavior, and sometimes induces sleep or stupor", I'd be fine as it all nets out. I'm just saying that the episode doesn't say "narcotic" and it is an unjustified leap to use the term as MA has it currently defined. Aholland 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC) :Fix the source, then - in that case the narcotics page if that settles it for everyone. :) -- Cid Highwind 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC) ::Done. See narcotics. More issues My time to "have issues"... ;) Following this, I will revert the citations from *ENT: "In A Mirror Darkly" Production Art (a link to an image page) back to *ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" (a reference to the episode that contains the information). We use links to episode for citation, and even the new canon policy hasn't changed that fact. Perhaps we should make it a general rule that "deciphered displays" should always be mentioned in a background section on the episode page, but we shouldn't start to take this sort of shortcut and link to images directly. I also think that the background paragraph regarding this resource is too verbose for this article. If we decide that these types of resources are valid (and obviously, we did just that on the canon policy page), there's no need to explain ourselves in greatest detail on every article page that uses information from such resource. If a background subsection is created on the episode page, such explanation could go there, perhaps. -- Cid Highwind 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC) ::I'm fine with the citation changes - for whatever that's worth! :) But I think we should retain somewhere in here or in the episode "In a Mirror, Darkly" a link to the production art. Otherwise someone stumbling in here a month or a year from now will start a conversation going with "how do we know . . . ." Perhaps the background page in the episode is the best way to go with that. Aholland 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC) :::Ok, time to face reality. Narcotics and drugs are generally the same thing, only the latter refers to a wider range of substances. Since later scripts labeled the substances used during the period in question as "narcotics", that is what should be used. It is so obvious that the substances used were narcotics anyway that arguing about it is pointless, IMO. That said... this is a rather silly debate. --From Andoria with Love 00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC) ::I think with the change to how Memory Alpha defines narcotics the debate is, indeed, over. However, I'm curious: which later scripts labelled the substances used by 21st Century soldiers as narcotics? Aholland 02:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Thoughts on timeline discontinuity 1996 already happened and there have been no headlines of Khan Noonien Soong. Perhaps they are using a different calendar - do they ever explicitly mention The Gregorian Calendar? Of course this is highly messed up by the fact that they always seem to hit a Gregorian mark in time travel. Thoughts? --The Rev 17:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ::I am not aware of any reference in the series to any established historical event that does not match our present-day calendar. Alternate time-line and future I can buy; trying to figure out why they would use a different calendar for that one event I can't. Just my two cents! :) Aholland 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC) My speculation - non canon For what it's worth, the follows below a map based on my ideas and speculation regarding WW3 and the powers that fight it. My basic concept is that WW3 might be between three power blocs: 1) The Eastern Coalition (obviously), and alliance of central and east Asian and north African states taken over by Islamic militants. 2) the "World Prosperity Union", a bloc led by the US (including Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, Australia, NZ, and India), united by 'the-dollar-at-all-costs' ;) . Russia and some central American states are 'associated' with the WPU, for the purposes of trade. 3) the European Hegemony - I've decided that the EH is the EU plus S.American and African protectorates that act much like China does for the US currently - the African Union acts as a workshop for the EU, the EU assists Africa (and to a lesser extent S.America) with it's infrastructure and social development, and provides military assistance against the militants in the north. The EU has become strongly socialist and is the most environmentally progressive power bloc, in contrast to the increasingly corporatised US and it's allies. I know there isn't any evidence of the EH being involved in WW3 as the references to it are for later time periods, but it makes more sense to me that a hegemonic international body would originate in such a fraught time as global conflict, and AFAIK there isn't anything to contradict the possibility of it existing earlier. I know this is all based on what you might call 'cartoon' politics, so please forgive my somewhat simplistic understanding of international relations. I don't expect that it will be of any use to the article, but I wanted some feedback and couldn't think of anywhere else to post it. here's the link Comments please! Tomegranate 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Information from the Animated Series With the animated series now considered as canon, I think it important that we take information from this series into consideration. According to the episode "The Infinite Vulcan", at the very least, Stavos Keniclius was born in the early 21st century. The library computer of the [[USS Enterprise|USS Enterprise]]; identifies this man as a scientist who lived in the era of the Eugenics Wars. His birth places these wars squarely in the 21st century. If we take into consideration Spock's words in "Space Seed", then we have two eras to consider - the era of the last world war, and now this new era of the Eugenics War. Could it be that the third world war was the major event, and the Eugenics War itself a part of this war (going from larger to smaller)? Furthermore, Stavos Kencilius would have achieved some of his work into eugenics twenty or thirty years after his birth, say in the late 2030's to early 2050's. It was further stated that he was exiled from Earth for his beliefs, suggesting that when exiled the governments had begun the process of rejecting Augmentation which fits with a world tired of war and looking for reconciliation and peace by rejecting what had brought them to this point.--Airtram3 11:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC) : Actually the discussion you are looking for his here, with dialog from TAS specifically here here, since the period he was involved in was specifically identified as the Eugenics Wars. Also, in reply to the above, there was no specific reference to the early 21st century-- while McCoy did say, "It couldn't be Keniclius, he would be over 250 years old!" He didn't specify a year, and over 250 years old could mean anything from 251 years to 1 billion years. So it is not out of the question that he was involved in late 20th century Eugenics, nor is it completely out of the question that McCoy was just pulling a random number out of the air. --Alan del Beccio 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)